Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

?t LEVERS DEFENCE. His Answer to Charge that He is a Traitor to the Party His Explanation of His Vote on the Lumber Tariff and the Reasons for His Position - Was in Line with Party Leaders and the Lumber Schedule was Not a Party Measure. The tariff Is a method of taxation. It la a tax laid upon Imported artl-! clea. According to the 1 >.*mocrathil Idea*, this tax Is borne by the con? sumer of the foreign-made article. The Democratic View. The Democratic party, as announc? ed In various platforms, stands for a tariff sufficient for revenue, "limited by the needs of the government, hon? estly and economically administered'' and "such duties to be so adjusted as to operate equally throughout the country and not discriminate between class or section." This is the lan? guage of the Walker report, upon which was constructed tho Demo? cratic tariff act of 1S46. since recog? nised by e\ i Democrat as the Ideal method of adjusting tariff rates to provide revenue to run the govern? ment, and at the same time, distrib? ute equally, throughout the country and upon all classes, the necessary burdens of this system of taxation. The Walker Act. and every other Democratic tariff act. admits that certain Incidental; more accurately, accidental and unavoidable benefits accrue to local industries wherever tariff duties are levied upon the for? eign article competing with them. The unavoidable benefit Is measured by the height of the tariff rate; and up to a certain point, all tariff duties are both revenue and protective. A rats is revenue in its character up to that point where its operation does not prevent Importations of the for? eign article; It becomes protective when Its operation prohibits Impor? tations of the foreign article. Tiie Democratic party has Jtead fastly adhered to the doctrine of so adjusting tariff rates that the burden ?f taxation be equally distributed; that the unavoidable benefits of the system go to all sections of the coun? try without discrimination. This is the fundamental doctrine of the party upon the tariff issue. I am an old fashioned Democrat with the cour? age to stand for the time-honored principles woven into the warp and woof of the party. I am a practical Democrat, who finds a distinction be? tween real Democracy and that kind if Democracy found lightly resting upon the lips of the demagogue. The fart? and Free Trade. The Democratic party is not a par? ty of free trade; Individual Demo? crats may stand for such a doctrine, but the organic party has never an? nounced It. It Is a cardinal principle, lidd down In the Walker report, that only "for imperative reasons the ar? tiste may be placed In the free list ?f thoee free from all duty." The party has never advocated a large free list for the pertinent reason that the larger the free list, the higher must be the rates upon the dutiable articles. The party stands for low rates upon all articles ana against high rates on any special articles; a rule whose only exception Is that "for imperative reasons" certain articles may be placed upon the free list and upon luxuries the rates may be made htfh. The man who does not adhere this doctrine Is either Ignorant of the basic principles of tho party, or not a Democrat. Democrat* May Differ on Schedule*. In the matter of adusting rates in an act containing as many as four thousand articles. It is but natural that Democrats may disagree among themselves, both as to the determi? nation of dutiable articles and as to the rate. This is not a matter of principle?it is one of Individual Judg? ment. As a Southern Democrat. I thing comni'-r |g| fertilizers should go upon the' free list, while a Northern Democrat believes a small revenue tax should be on this article. My opin? ion that no tax should be placed upon It mak' -? m. ic. ( I ?enio'Tat than his belief that It should bear a tax maken him a Republican. It Is a mat? ter of Individual Judgment, and no man can jnstK be read out of the party who happens to differ Ithw his party who happens to differ with his, revenue rate adjustment. The iMitv on Lumber. Criticism ??f me has been Indulged In hy some of th?- press, and a f.-w constituents, because after m ir n?> consideration I did ;e?t see tit to v?.t * to place Importerl lumber upon the free list. In voting upon this sehed? ub?. I aol. t.d to the doctrine of the Walker r. port that "the duty should be mo Imposed as to operate as equal? ly aa poydhh' throughout the Cribm. i -c riminating neither for nor against any duo ..r section" that except for "imper il i\? rsasons*' no article should pla< ? I upon the fr .? lUt. The I'hitroiMi Dertumtfteei Hp efttf ?? wilt Imm 'dlately say thai the. "imperativ?- reason" for placing lumber on th? fre.? 11 r ; the pi iff tui declaration on the subject. Permit me, and strangely for the first time, to quote fully the declaration. "Existing duties have given the manufacturers of paper a shelter be? hind which they have organized com? binations to raise the price of pulp and of paper, thus Imposing a tax upon the spread of knowledge. W< demand the immediate repeal of the tariff on wood-pulp, print paper, lum? ber, timber and logs, and that those articles be placed upon the free list." My critics have been unfair not only to me, but to their readers In quoting only the last sentence of the declaration, which is preceded by h preamble, setting out the reason for asking that certain articles go upon the free list. The reason was that the duty on wood-pulp, print paper ami certain kinds of lumber, timber and logs have given, not the manufacturers of lumber nor the owners of stump age, but the manufautcurers of paper, a shelter behind which they had or? ganized combinations to raise the price of paper, not lumber, timber nor logs (for logs have been on the free list since 1872), thus imposing a tax, not upon the building of homes, churches or school houses, but "upon the spread of knowledge." There is not a lawyer nor a fair-minded lay? man in Christendom who will not agree to th construction. To expe? dite the spread of knowledge, by making print paper cheaper, was the dominating idea in the mind of the convention. It recognized a special reason for placing lumber, und the word lumber is used as a double pre? caution against anything which grofs Into the making of print pape.? es? caping, timber and logs that go into the making of print paper upon ?.h'j free list, and I do not believe there was a thought of that kind of lumber that goes Into the ordinary uses of trade. What imperative reason was there to demand that lumber bearing a 12 to 16 per cent ad valorem duty be placed upon the free list9 What more ?just reason existed for pi icing trade lumber upon the free list than there was to demand tha* wool, woolen goods, blankets, binding twir.e, bagging and ties, and other articles carrying duties ranging from SS to 157 per cent should go upon the fieelist? There are two explanations only: Either the convention had in mind only that kind of timber, lumber and logs, and goes into the manufacture of print paper and wood-pulp; or there was an effort here to repeat what has been attempted to be done in every Democratic tariff act since the war, discriminate against the South in the interest of other sections of the country. I am content that my critics choose either horn of the dilemma. If they take the first, then I am guilty of no violation, either of principle of policy announced in this platform; if they take the second, they concede their desire to see the South forever discriminated against in tariff legislation and must assume the burden of defense for their posi? tion. As for me, I Intend to stand by the South and my own people. Lumber. I voted against the proposition to put timber on the free list though voting for a 50 per cent reduction) bocause by the testimony and admis? sion of those who have studied the question, the duty on lumber does not affect the price of lumber in the South, and is paid entirely by those who live along che Canadian border line. The revenue duty for which I voted will put into the treasury ap? proximately $3.000,000 annually, and I assert as my Judgment that not one penny of this will come out of the Southern people, but all from that SSCttoa of the country which for 40 ? ars has forced its iniquitous sys? tem upon the people I represented. Hwi 1 transferred a burden, which WOUM have rested upon my people, by voting against putting an article on the free list and thereby made the other man bear it. K> ? p in mind It was necessary to raise from $3,000,000 to $350.000, 000 by duties upon imported articles, in I rtntmbtf it is only the consum? er. According to Lender champ Clark and every student of ecomony, who payi a tariff tax. The Southern peo? ple consume commercial fertilizers, hence I worked to take the tax off of that. l>o Tho> CSC Canadian Lumber? They do not use Canadian lumber, therefore, would have to hour none of the tafl placed upon It. Is this last tstoment correct? Every business men knows It Is true, because the i ? ight rates on lumber from Cana lfl points to Southern points make if impossible for the Canadian lum rman to pay them and Hell his lum I In "tupetition upon the local mar kots Consul Hotchklss, under Cleve? land's administration, said: "if the I duty of %'? is removed, it will not nf feoi tie- price, becsuss it has never heen \ factor end will still beunfelt." Minority leader Champ Clark. In his speech or March 13, lifts, ?peaking of the ? irirr on lumber saId Ml want to say to tm Southern 1 friends, M ho Interested In yellow I pine, that I he Inrlft on lumber never 'raised th?* price of yellow pine lum* I b^r one ling Is cent ilnce the world began, it would ret lower II now to ? .1 a it off The Duty on Lumber Reduced?its Effect?. If the contention that free lumber | could affect the price of that article in the South wore correct, then any reduction in the duty on lumber in the tariff act of 1909 would effect a corresponding reduction in the price of lumber in 1910?one year after the passage of the act. What are the facts? The president of your Cham? ber of Commerce, Mr. Of under date Of June 30, 1910, writes me that the price list for lumber is the same now that it was 12 months ago, and that those prices will continue for the bal? ance of the year and maybe longer. In support of the contention that free lumber meant cheaper lumber in the South, the natural effect would have caused a decrease in the price of lo? cal lumber proportionate to the de? crease in the duty on It; but the mar? ket price has remained the same; ocndusivsly proving, that as far as the South Is concerned, the tariff does not affect the price of lumber? that the price of that article is fixed by American lumbermen, according to well known laws of economy. So then, in the teeth of my critics, I have, beyond question, mathemati? cally demonstrated that my vote against the proposition of free lum? ber did not affect the price of lumber In the South. If I had not voted for this revenue duty on lumber, I should have given the Republicans the right to have de? manded the placing of duties on ar? ticles which the Southern people do consume, to have raised rates upon articles which we use to a point suf? ficiently high to put into the treasury the $3,000,000?which is npw put there by the duty on lumber4. I took the business view of the situation, as against the sentimental, feeling that it was my duty to the people of the South to save them taxation whenever I could under "?n iniquitous Republi? can system. I What Would My Critics Do? By putting a small duty on lum? ber, I made the other sections of the country put into the treasury $3,000, 000 and saved my own from having to pay their pro rata share of this amount. I want to know what these gentlemen who criticize me would do in making a tariff bill. Would they make all sections of the country bear the burden equally or would they, In their angelic unselfishness, put the bulk of the burden upon their own people and relieve other people as far as possible of their Just share of the burden ? I want to ask these gentle? men to tell the people of South Caro? lina the foreign articles upon which they would place their revenue and how high they would place such duties. I put the duty on lumber, be? cause our people do not use Canadian lumber and hence, will pay none of the tax. Upon what will you place your duty, Mr. Critic, and put $3,000, 000 into the treasury and yet none of it come out of the pockets of your people? I dare you to name one ar? ticle upon which you can raise $3,000, 000 of federal taxation and yet none of it come from the people of South Carolina. Mr. Critic, will you put your duty on commercial fertilizers? The South consumes 90 per cent of that. Will you raise the duty on bagging and ties? The South consumes all of that. Will you raise the duty on farm machinery? The South consumes its pro-rata share of this. Be honest, tell the people the article upon which you place your dutis and I will guar? antee you that you will find none ex? cept lumber, upon which you can place them without putting a burden of taxation upon the Southern peo? ple. Was the Rate Democratic** I assert that the revenue duty for which I voted was a Democratic reve? nue producing rate; because, first, the rate ranged from 6 per cent, ad valorem to 16 per cent, ad valorem? the lowest in the bill?while the gen? eral ad valorem average of the last Democratic tariff act was 42 7-10 per cent. Second, the duties for which I voted do not prohibit, but allow, large importations, sufficient to bring in revenue to an amount exceeding $3.000,000 annually. So long as Im? portations come in freely, the tariff duty is regarded by all economists as revenue producing, and, therefore, Democratic. Every Democratic tariff act, except three, have carried du? ties on lumber ranging from f> per cent to 36 per cent ad valorem. Not a Party Question. The vote on lumber was neither partlslan nor a test of party loyalty. This Is proven In the fact that Hon James Tawney, the closest friend of Speaker ('annon and leading Repub? lican In the house, was the man who offered the free lumber amendment and r.7 Republicans voted with him, a majority of whom voted for the bid on its final passage, though it on talned a duty on lumber. My recj' lectlon is thai 42 Democrats In the house from *ii" South voted with m?? on this proposition. In the senate 27 Democrats voting on this schedule, 17, i ?; from the South, among them ie n Confederate soldiers and Senator Money, the lender of the Democrats in the senate, voted for a $2 duty on lumber hh agnlnsl the M duty for hielt I voted In the house. Arn Diese inen to be driven oul of the party? Men who have fought its battles for 30 years? No! They, with me, recog? nized that this free lumber proposi? tion was an unjust discrimination against the taxpayers of the South and refused to stand for it. I am willing that my Democracy be meas- j ured by the standards of such men is : Money, Daniel and Griggs, who for three successive terms was chairman 0 fthe Democratic congressional com? mittee. Calhoun and Mr-Duffle in IS It' voted for a duty of 20 per cent 0:1 rough lumber and 30 per cent on dressed lumber, and I am willing to take my stand with them. If they are Democrats, then I am one; if they are not, then I am not. Statement of Minority Leader. What does the Hon. Champ Clark say about my vote? In The Ne-'s and Courier of July 3, 1910, spea t ng of the South Carolina delegation, he says: "There has been no delegation which has been more faithful to its duties both in attendance, and in vot? ing always with the Democrats, than the South Carolina delegation. On every question that has been made politically they have lined up to a man and voted right." 1 I wrote Mr. Clark and asekd him specifically whether my vote, putting a Democratic revenue duty on lum? ber, was, or should be made, a test of party loyalty; whether there was any special reason why the Demo? cratic platform should demand that this article be placed upon the free list; whether I had not asked him ta call a caucus on this question and promised to be bound by it; and whether I had not always been loyal to the principles of the party. In re? ply he writes: "I never tried to make the vote on lumber a party matter or a test of party loyalty. What I did try to do was to make the vote on rhe tariff bill a party measure, and on '?'e motion to recommit the conference report on that bill which was a test, every Democrat in the house voted with me, except one, Mr. Broussard of Louisi I ana. On the adoption of the confer? ence report every Democrat voted with me, except two, Messrs. Bous sard and Estopinal of Louisiana. On both these propositions you voted with me." These were the test votes, and this is what the Democratic leader says about my attitude. On the final pas? sage of the bill, both in the house and as it came from the senate, I voted with my party and against it. Answering the question as to the demand for free lumber in the Den? ver platform, Leader Clark says : "I do not myself believe in putting specifications in a platform. My Judg? ment is that a platform ought to state general principles." Again, as to the caucus, whose ac? tion makes party policies in congress, he says: "It is a fact that a good many Dem? ocrats wanted a caucus called on the tariff bill. You were one of those who wanted a caucus." As to my general Democracy, Leader Clark says: "So far as I recollect, and I think my recollection is correct, you have y never kicked out of traces on any? thing which was a party measure." It seems to me that if my Democ? racy is good neough for the chosen leaders, both in the house and sen? ate, it ought to be good enough for those who criticize me. Lumber in Tariff Act. The statement has been made by a newspaper of the State which deludes itself into the belief that it has been ordained as guardian of the Democ? racy of the State that "to vote against free lumber would be un-Democratic irrespective of platform because it would be out of harmony with t.ho traditional Democratic tariff posi? tion." I challenge the correctness of this statement, and I assert that it was made either in woeful ignorance of the fact as proven by history, or comes with the deliberate and ma? licious intention to mislead the peo? ple by misrepresenting the facts. I assert that with only two or three ex? ceptions every Democratic tariff act from the beginning of the government up to the Civil war contained a duty on lumber, ranging from 5 to 35 per cent ad valorem. As I recall It only the acts of IS24 and 18 28 carried no duty on lumber?all others from 1789 to 1857 Inclusive, Republican and Democratic alike, carried lumber upon the dutiable list. Kven the Compro? mise act of 1833, wrung from Presi? dent Jackson by the Nullification doc? trine of .lohn C. Calhoun, carried an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent less l-lo of 5 pep eent ad valorem on lum? ber, while the Democratic act of 1 s l? which Is regarded by every Democrat as a model in Democratic tariff leg? islation and Which was put through the senate under the leadership of Ooo. v. Mel ?utile and voted for by John C. Calhoun, carried duties of from 20 to 30 pel- cent on lumber. The a< t of ivr.7. a Democratic act, reduc? ing the duties of the a et of 1846, car rled a duty of 2 t per cent nd v alorem on dr< p tod lumber and I ~> per eent on I rough lumber. I voted for a 8 p< r eent ad valorem ??n rough lumber and a l fl per cenl ad valorem on dressed lumber. I low it can be said, In the face of tie se facts which can no! be disputed that free lumber ia a tradi tlonal position of the Democratic par? ty on the tariff is more than I can understand. I am charitable enough to believe that the newspaper which published such a statement is guilty only of ignorance and is guiltless of the deliberate desire to misrepresent the facts. Again, if free lumber, as is alleged by this newspaper, is a traditional policy of the Democratic party, then we ought to find in the platforms of the party some reference to free lum? ber. 1 defy the newspaper which so glibly makes this declaration to point out a single platform of the Demo? cratic party, except that of 1908, in which any reference at all is made to the subject of free lumber. I assert, and dare proof to the contrary, that no Democratic platform in the history of the country ever contained any declaration with reference to lumber, except the Denver platform. Yet it is solemnly asserted that free lumber Is traditionally a Democratic doctrine and this newspaper which assumes to teach Democratic doctrines would have the people believe a statement which is disproven by the facts. I challenge this newspaper to deny the accuracy of my statements; I chal? lenge it to meet squarely and fairly the issue here joined. I demand that the scuttleflsh method shall be aban? doned and that this case shall be pre? sented fairly and squarely to the peo? ple, and as far as I am concerned personally, I shall be content with the verdict which they give. The report of my speech made at Davis says I made the "startling as? sertion that the platform of the Dem? ocratic party discriminated against the South." I did not say exactly this ?what Idid say, and I repeat it here, was. that the Democratic platform in demanding that lumber should be placed upon the free list had discrimi? nated against the South and that the iniquitous Republican doctrine of free raw material for the New England manufacturers and protected manu? factured products for the New Eng I land manufacturers?written into the doctrine of the Democratic party I by the selfish greed of the New Eng? lander?was a discrimination against the Southern producer in favor of the New England manufacturer. I said more than this, that no true South? erner, with the Interest of his people at heart, with the courage to fight for I an equal showing for his own people 1 under the law, would stand for any such Iniquitous and unjust discrimi? nation. If that be treason, make the I most of It. The doctrine of free raw material I and protected finished products, made I out of this same raw material, was I never recognized by the Democratic I party anything other than a Re? publican policy so long as the Demo? cratic party policy was fixed by the Influence of the Southern Democracy. As long as the South dominated the Democratic party of the country the doctrine jof free raw material was re I garded as a Republican principle and I as a means ol furnishing protection to the manufacturer. But as soon as the I South became a subjugated people, dependent for its very life upon Its allies of the North, East and West; I when the South had lost its influence J within the party councils; when*"1 the I policies of the party began to '"i 1 made by the New England Democracy, it was then and not until then that the Democratic party began to get away I from Its traditional positions with re? spect to the doctrine of dutiable raw material. Why? Because free raw material Is In the Interest of the New England manufacturer; it is to his benefit to get bis raw material free of taxation and to raise all revenue with which to run the governent by plac? ing h6swy duties upon his manufac tured products. It is another case of New England selflshness.sacriflclng a party principle to New England greed. There may be those In South Carolina who want to join hands in this Cru? sade of the New England manufac? turer against the producing popula? tion of the South, but as for me T shall be found either carrying their flag or fighting in ranks in the in? terest of my own people. Tt is asserted that the platform of MSSS declared in favor of free raw I material. T deny the accuracy of that statement and I assert as a matter I of history that this doctrine has never found lodgment in but one platform of the Democratic party since it was founded by Thomas Jefferson one hun? dred and thirty years ago, and that only in 1892, "when certain New Eng? land capitalists of quasi-Democratic affiliations secured a ninety-nine year lease of Nova Scotia coal deposit? and proposed making fortunes for them? selves by driving Southern bituminous coal out of New England markets." This was the first and only time in Ihe history of the party that thl# vi< ious sectional doctrine was ever attempted to be sneaked into a Dem? ocratic platform. In this connection, it may he well to keep In mind that tin* howl for free lumber became loud? est, longest and most Insistent only after certain Western lumbermen ? likely of quasi-Democratic affiliations had used practically all of the forests I in Ihclr own section and had Invested I $10,000.000 in Canadian stumpage, al j though iii< ir great lumbi i plants a ere still on tho American side of the line and ii was in their Interest to cut their timber in Canada, ship it to their mills across the line in the United States without having to pay into the federal treasury the ordinary tax which other commodities pay for *hat privilege. Here is your doctrine of free raw material that these gen? tlemen would have me advocate as your representative, but I shall not do it so long as I am in congress, and if the people of my district are unwil? ling for me to battle in their interests against the aggressive greed of other sections of the nation, then I have greatly misunderstood the people of the district. If the House Had Been Democratic. If the Democrats hao controlled the house, and we had been called upon to frame a tariff bill constructed along the idea of reduced expenditures and increased revenue from an Income tax as a part of our plan of revenue taxation, it would have been possible to have put lumber on the free list, and yet work no discrimination against the' taxpayers of the South. A Democratic bill would have so re? arranged rates and schedules that they would have borne equitably and justly upon all sections, persons and industries?as is repeatedly demanded in various Democratic platforms. The Payne-Aldrich tariff bill, in its unjust discriminations against the South gives the Western farmer his binding twine free of duty, but puts a tax of $7,000,000 annually upon the bagging and ties of the people whom in part I represent. A Democratic bill would have given the Western farmer free binding twine, the Southern farmer free baging and ties, and the lumber consumer along the Canadian border line free lumber; and here is a prac? tical illustration of how these duties may be equalized under a Democratic system, with equal advantages to ev? ery and special hurt to no section. I would not force my people to booT the burden of this Republican tariff bill, thereby permitting a large section of the country to escape its share My people are entitled to a fair deal irt this government; and so long as I am in congress I intend, as far as lies within my power, to see that they get it .1 believe in the real doctrine of the Democratic party founded upon the everlasting truth of equal aid and exact Justice to all men and all sec? tions. A representative of the people who Is content to be a mere nonentity, following the lead of others, fright? ened by every shadow across his path? way, too cowardly to do his duty for fear of criticism, is unworthy of a seat in that great body which represents the intelligence and patriotism of the American people, I could ? not fit a Democratic peg into a Republican hole and do Justice to the people of the South; and rather than do otherwise, I am willing, regardless of the mis? understanding of a few and the direct misrepresentation of a few more, to submit the issue, and I do It with a full reliance upon the intelligence, broad-mindeuness and justness of heart of the people who have honored me so long. Believing with the groat Jefferson tha? the consent of the gov? erned is the seat of power, I shall make my appeal to the living source of true Democracy with the full con? sciousness that the will of the people is the very genius of popular govern? ment. Mr. Leighton W. Lide, of Darling? ton county died Wednesday night, aged 72 years. 60 YEARS* EXPERIENCE Trade Marks Designs Copyrights Ac. Anyone sending a sketch and descripllroi may qntckly ascertain our opinion free whether an invention is probably pmentable. Oommuuica tionsatrictly r ?nildcnthtl. HANDBOOK on 1'ateoUi aent free. Oldest sjzency for securing patents. Patents taken thronen Muna & Co. receive 'ptcial notice, w'tliout charge, in the Scientific Jftneaicam A handsomolr Illustrated weekly. T?s.reest cir? culation <'t any scientist Journal. Terms, $S a ve.-ir: four mouths, IL Sold by all newsdealers. MUNN &Co.36,B~?^NewYorlE Branch Of****. ?25 F Pt,. Washington. 1). C. Are You Looking for a Position? We can offer you good Paying Employment that you will enjoy and at home. Write to-dav *ddrtss The Butterick Publishing Co. Buffterlck BuiIdlpq. New Ycrk, IL Y. PATENTS PROCURED AND DEFENDED. ??????4 atMM in?; m'photo, foraraett searrn ami hm rvport? Kr? i- nX\ lee, ham t.> obtain pat? nt-=. tr.-uh marks, ' IN Alt COUNTRIES. Buslm f.? Jim t xvitk W*t$kh\wto% aatv? time, m mty if'i i ? ft' n the patent. Patent and Infringement Practice Exclusively. Write or swaf to i!" M B13 Mtntn Stro?t, mpB. United Btit#t ThUzA Oftcs, WASHINGTON, D. C. GASNOWI.